Thursday, August 18, 2011

You know what really pisses me off about things like this? Not the fact that it can be perceived as mildly offensive. No, it's the fact that a company and its ad company can be stupid enough to actually put out an ad like this. How does no one in a meeting raise their hand and say, "Ummm, yeah, let's not do this one, because deserved or not, we're going to catch hell for it."

"Adding Nivea to the list of companies that will not be getting my money," tweeted blogger Septembre Anderson...

Get off your high horse. You're a fucking blogger and your name is September and you spell it wrong.

Imagine if it was a white dude with scraggly ass hair and a playoff beard. Crickets.

Look, I know that's somewhat different and it's not as if I don't see why people would be bothered by this. But to me people these days are just always way too anxious to puke out their forced indignation. This irritates me because they're not doing anything to advance the dialog, they're just making noise and trying to feel good about how righteous they are. Oh, and another thing: afros and beards aren't civilized... That's why they're cool.

Even more sickening is the typical, unimaginative response from the offending company:

"Diversity and equal opportunity are crucial values of NIVEA: The brand represents diversity, tolerance, and equal opportunity."

Your brand represents helping people relieve dry skin and masturbation. That's it.


Sunday, August 14, 2011

So Michele Bachmann won the Iowa corn hole, ERRRR, the Iowa straw poll. Irrelevant political theater won by irritating political actor. Even more irrelevant as all the Republican candidates are in trouble now with Rick Perry in the race. There's a "real" Christian running (sorry Mitt) who so far doesn't have that crazy vibe (sorry Michele) who is governor of a state people have heard of (sorry Minnesota).

I think Perry is a very interesting candidate in the sense that he is quite possibly exactly what the Republicans have been in need of. I used to think that Newt was what the Republicans needed but that dude's campaign is in such disarray and thinking back he is probably too cerebral for the Republican electorate. OK, that's partly unfair; he's probably too much of a thinker for the voting population at large. Keep in mind this is a country that wants a president that they could theoretically sit down and have a beer with. Fuck that; I want a president who is too busy studying to be doing fucking keg stands and shit.

Again Perry is like Newt -- not someone I would back in reality but if I put myself in Republican shoes I think I would. Along those lines I can't say Perry won brownie points with me after the recent prayer rally controversy; as I said in my long religion rant it's not that I automatically discount someone because they like Jesus, but when you're a sitting governor and you're a really really big fan of Jesus and you're blurring the line of separation between church and state, well, that's not helping.

Here are some interesting perspectives on the debate over that event. Some of this I can get on board with, such as the fact that we can't just bar politicians from exercising their faith or expect it to become totally private for them. But I don't see how "use of official resources, including a gubernatorial proclamation, to promote the prayer service" is not a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment.

It's a pipe dream, but I really just wish people didn't need for the president -- you know, the most powerful person in the world -- to believe in not just an invisible man in the sky, but a very particular invisible man in the sky. It's required for a person to believe in ghosts and fairy tales to hold the highest office in the land. That just bothers me, but I'm getting off on a tangent.

This does allow me to come back to what I was originally talking about, and that's Rick Perry. I think religious conservatives really will breathe a sigh of relief with Perry in the race. They don't have to bullshit themselves anymore that they can accept Romney's Mormonism, which, let's face it, is weird to "mainstream" Christians even though they all believe in god and Jesus. OK sure, there's Bachmann, who has staunch religious street cred. But let's face it, conservatives will be way happier with a male Christian candidate than a female one.

So, he's got the religious and social conservative check boxes checked. As mentioned before he's not a nutcase like Bachmann, although of course that craziness she exudes really does resonate with a lot of stupid people who are yearning for a true moron to get behind.

Okay sorry but that brings me to a quick aside on Bachmann:

There was much ado about nothing with regards to this Newsweek cover this past week. It was slammed as sexist, liberal media bias, blah blah false indignation blah blah blah. I agree that the pic chosen was not exactly the most flattering. But people don't want to admit one thing: that's pretty much what she looks like. Michele Bachmann is a weird looking woman and I wish people would quit fucking pandering to the notion that she's some kinda MILF.

What the fuck was I talking about again? Oh yeah, Perry. Republicans have fucked themselves in the ass by focusing so much on national debt, in particular with the recent debt ceiling crisis. On the surface, tackling the debt/deficit looks like a win-win for republicans: it allows them to look like serious fiscal conservatives while at the same time cutting funding for stuff they don't like. Like programs that help the poor and the middle class.

Meanwhile, the biggest problem in this country isn't the deficit, it's jobs. Particularly for the poor and middle class. Yes, government spending is absolutely something that needs to be addressed. This includes things that are near and dear to the left, such as Social Security and Medicare. But right now, jobs and the economy are the most important things that need to be taken care of. Deficit reduction is not going to create jobs, and cutting government spending during a time of recovery is a dubious measure at best if you want to keep the recovery going.

Rick Perry can claim that he is a fiscal hawk as he has done things in office such as balance the state budget (as always, there is more context). Even more one thing he can and will push hard is how he's a job creator (I don't just mean in the sense that he's rich, as all rich people are job creators now). Again, there is some context here too. High numbers of low-paying jobs, a good deal of the jobs not necessarily due to his actions, etc.

Still, Rick Perry appears to be a formidable candidate although not an unbeatable one. I know Republicans would be more than willing to fight dirty and go after him, but in the end I don't know if any of them have anything substantive to counter with. And should he get the nomination, I don't know that the Democrats have the balls to really go after him in ways that are completely legit.

In other words, will anyone really add the necessary context to Perry's rhetoric? They need to do Perry up Karl Rove style and tear him down on his strengths. In fact, if Perry becomes the Republican candidate for the general election, the Democrats need to just go balls out and just hire Karl Rove. Seriously. He'd do it, too; give the man enough money and he would suck off James Carville.

I have no ending for this other than leaving you with that image. You're welcome.